The word either is usually reserved for groups with two members. There are more than just the R candidate and the D candidate running. There's the L candidate, whom I picked because I assumed the letter "L" stood for Lesbians in this case.

The two-party system only exists because nobody has come along to shake it up. It's not legally or constitutionally mandated.

It's attitudes like that which keep the completely fubar'd two-party system in place.

The only way to truly waste a vote is to vote for a candidate you don't really believe in. While I agree that they don't "speak to ones individuality" since by their nature votes aren't public knowledge (however if you shout from the hills who you voted for... then it speaks to your individuality, but the action of voting itself does not), I disagree that it's not "[making] a statement". If a third party gets a significant amount of the popular vote it does make a statement. What happens afterwards is another question. In 1992 Independent Candidate Ross Perot was included in the Presidential Debates and ended up taking 18.9% of the popular vote Nationwide (though still failing to win any actual electoral votes). The result of this was a rule change by the Commission on Presidential Debates to effectively exclude 3rd Party Candidates from all future debates (remember the Commission isa non-profit run by the DNC and the RNC and is not actually a Government run organization). Sounds more like the Major Parties were running scared; if Perot could win nearly 19% of the popular vote then a Third Party or Independent could potentially start winning electoral votes or maybe even an election after a few election cycles, so they had to fix things in their favor before it all got out of hand.

You don't have to agree with them 100% to believe in them. I don't agree with Gary Johnson 100%, but I do believe he would do the best job (hence "I believe in him" and thus my vote is not wasted on Obama or Romney). You say you don't agree with Obama 100%, but do you believe in him? Based on your statements is sounds like you do. Good for you. You're voting for a candidate you believe in (and thus aren't wasting your vote).

Those Libertarians that used to be Republicans did try, you might remember that Ron Paul had quite a lot of support from voters... Until the Christian Fundamentalists stacked the deck against him. Several caucuses (like St. Charles, MO) tried to over-rule the crowds in attendance and send delegates that supported the "chosen" candidate at the time (usually Santorum or Romney). Those where Paul did win, and got delegates to the National Convention, found that the Paul Delegates were getting kicked out and replaced with pro-Romney delegates to limit dissent within the party. At one point in the RNC they stopped putting the numbers up for Ron Paul. It's difficult to retake a party when your opposition has themselves so deeply entrenched that they can change the rules to be in their favor.

Not all Libertarians are disenfranchised Republicans either. Some of them do believe that the role of Federal Government in our daily lives should be quite small. That maintaining a strong military is important, but that we shouldn't be as aggressive as we have been. That Corporations do *not* have the same rights as people. That Religion, Race, Sexual Identity, etc.. should play absolutely no role in legislation (ie: legislating who can and cannot be legally married based on the religious definition of marriage). That Marijuana should be legalized and regulated like Alcohol and Tobacco (the side effects of which are reduced prison populations, reduced power of drug cartels, more tax revenue for states... all of which would be fantastic for this country). Most of those views (despite being a truly "conservative" view-point) are the opposite of anything heard from the Republican Party during the last 50+ years.

It's also an arguable point that if the Libertarian Party wanted to change the Republican Party from within they would first have to prove that they are more valuable to the Republican Party than the Religious Fundamentalists. If the Libertarians cannibalize enough votes from both parties this election. It makes it clear (to both parties) that they will need to make platform changes and if they don't they will continue to hemorrhage voters over the next few election cycles until the Libertarians or some other Third Party become legitimate contenders. IMHO this is the true role of Third Parties in a Two Party system. They exist to keep the "major" parties in check.

Neither the Democrat Party nor the Republican Party existed when our country was founded, so at one point in time they were both "Third Parties". The Republican Party was founded in 1854 (78 years after the Declaration of Independence) as a bunch of anti-slavery activists. The Democrat Party evolved out of the Anti-Federalist party which originally favored similar views that modern Libertarians have (limited Federal Government and pro-State's Rights). If you look at the history of our country, the idea that our country was designed to be a two-party system is patently false. The current major parties may have changed the rules to be in their favor, but a "two-party" system was never the original intent (if it were the Constitution would probably say something about it).

I don't have time for a longer reply, but for what it's worth, the way Ron Paul and his supporters are treated within the Republican party disgusts me. Still, I admire Paul for sticking it out and trying to change the party from within. The second he leaves the party, he loses any political clout he ever would hope to enjoy. My sincere hope is that at some point, the Libertarians and Ron Paul supporters, who I believe to be extremely similar politically, can get together and suppress all of the religious nutcases who have stolen the party. Because if that doesn't happen, I honestly think that sometime within the next 20-30 years, the Republican party will effectively be dead except in local elections. As a Democrat that doesn't bother me too much, but as an American, I don't like the idea of one party having unfettered control over the system.

And yes, I do (for the most part) believe in Barack Obama as a candidate. I'm not just voting for the lesser of two evils; I honestly believe that he has made significant strides in making the country a better place. I honestly believe that he could have done even better--and thus we could all be even better off--had Republicans worked with him instead of stating from day one that their top political objective is to get him out of office. Still, given what he had to work with, I think he had made some amazing accomplishments and that history will judge him as one of our best presidents.

I beg to differ, it matters a great deal. The two major candidates have a lot of differences about how they'd handle the economy. Even more importantly, whichever side you come down on for issues such as "money == speech", "corporations are people", or Roe v. Wade, the long-term balance of the Supreme Court will very likely be decided by who gets elected.

Yes but which side supports balancing the budget during their term? Which side supports auditing the Fed? Which side supports repealing the NDAA? Which side supports repealing the PATRIOT Act? Which side will bring troops home? Which side won't start a war with Iran? Which side will cut unnecessary spending from the government? Which side will stop the war on drugs? Which side will support gay marriage? I think you get where I am going... You talk about 4 general ideas, but when it comes to important real issues, there is no difference.

I think you get where I am going... You talk about 4 general ideas, but when it comes to important real issues, there is no difference.

Actually, no, I don't know where you're going. I think the issues I mentioned are important and real. I also think that there are noteworthy policy differences between the two parties on several of the issues you raised. You may disagree with me about how big the differences are or which way many of those things should go, but to claim that there are no differences is ludicrous.

The only difference is the rate at which we lose our freedoms, the rate at which we are impoverished by higher taxes and inflation, the rate at which we start more wars, etc. The bottom line is a vote for either Romney or Obama are both a vote for bigger government, greater government spending, and m ore freedoms taken from us. It doesn't matter which one is president, either way we all lose.

You don't think there's a difference between the major parties on gay marriage? Because there definitely is. As for starting a war with Iran, one party is clearly more likely to do that, although it's hard to say absolutely that either one won't. They'll probably both bring the troops home from the current theaters though.

Balancing the budget within the next four years isn't an important real issue. It's arbitrary, and possibly counter-productive. Balancing the budget eventually is a worthy goal, but doing so in the middle of a recession is not. Auditing the fed sounds reasonable but I wouldn't call it important.

I agree with you on the NDAA and the Patriot act, and the pointless war on drugs. But those values have to be weighed against other important, real issues, where there is a real difference: Education availability, corporate person-hood, investment in green energy, support for the worst-off, international diplomacy, trade policy, immigration policy, financial regulation, health-care cost-management, and of course, social policy. These are all important, real areas of disagreement between the two major political parties. Will you ignore them all?

If you mean that finantial industry that only exists because it is protected by the government, yes, that's part of what I'm talking about.

There was no deregulation. Deregulation would open the door for concurrent entities to assume that same function, and would srink your banks into a sane size. What happened is that the regulation changed, in a way that increased the relevance of the government sponsoring.

Obama wants to raise the top tax rate and cut some spending, and has outlined his specific plan which independent economists say would reduce the budget deficit.

Romney announced that he wants to cut taxes even more for the wealthy, and claims he'll close that loophole with deductions and spending cuts, but refuses to offer specifics.

Which side supports auditing the Fed? Which side supports repealing the NDAA? Which side supports repealing the PATRIOT Act?

Fair criticism. However, Romney has said things like "We should double Guantanamo."

Which side will bring troops home?

Obama has brought troops home.

From Politifact: 'Romney's current campaign website is vague on plans for Iraq. He buries the issue in a topics page about the Middle East, praising George W. Bush's 2007 "surge" of troops and bashing Obama's 2011 withdrawal deadline. He makes a reference to reports from field commanders who "recommended a 14,000 to 18,000-strong residual force as the minimum necessary to carry out our transition mission."'

US military commanders have warned their Israeli counterparts that any action against Iran would severely limit the ability of American forces in the region to mount their own operations against the Iranian nuclear programme by cutting off vital logistical support from Gulf Arab allies.

Romney: "Well, it's worth putting in place crippling sanctions. It's worth working with the insurgents in the country to encourage regime change in the country. And if all else fails, if after all of the work we've done, there's nothing else we could do besides mil -- take military action, then of course you take military action. It is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon. We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon."

President Obama signed a bill Tuesday reducing the disparity in penalties for the use of crack and powder cocaine, according to the White House.

The enactment of the law seals a hard-fought victory for civil rights activists who have argued for years that the differing punishments unfairly target African-Americans.

Romney: "The entryway into our drug culture for our young people is marijuana. Marijuana is the starter drug. And the idea of medical marijuana is designed to help get marijuana out into the public marketplace and ultimately lead to the legalization of marijuana overall. And in my view, that's the wrong way to go."

The guy is religiously bound to avoid caffeine, for Christ's sake.

Which side will support gay marriage?

Obama has instructed the Justice Department to stop defending DOMA and supports a legislative appeal of DOMA by the Respect for Marriage Act.

From CSM: "Mr. Romney signed a National Organization for Marriage pledge a year ago in favor of a federal constitutional amendment to define marriage solely as between one man and one woman. Further, the former Massachusetts governor does not support civil unions."

I think you get where I am going... You talk about 4 general ideas, but when it comes to important real issues, there is no difference.

(This will contain factual statements about Mormon history that is not intended to needlessly disparage their religion. There could be an entire other discussion about continuing in a faith that finds the truth to be offensive, but my purpose here is to reveal the truth for its own sake.)

I will concede immediately that the Mormon stance on caffeine is not what I thought it was. It's even more ridiculous than I imagined, though it does allow for Mitt to drink Diet Coke, so you are narrowly correct in your implication for a citation.

From WikiPedia:

The "Word of Wisdom" is the common name of a section of the Doctrine and Covenants... It is also the name of a health code based on this scripture, practiced most strictly by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) and Mormon fundamentalists, and to a lesser extent, some other Latter Day Saint denominations. In the LDS Church, compliance with the Word of Wisdom is currently a prerequisite for baptism, service in full-time missionary work, attendance at church schools, and entry into the church's temples...

The text discourages "hot drinks", the non-medicinal use of tobacco, the consumption of wine (excluding sacramental wine) or "strong drinks", and encourages using meat sparingly. The scripture also recommends the consumption of herbs, fruits, and grains, as well as grain-based "mild drinks". As practiced by the LDS Church, there is no firm restriction relating to meat consumption, but there are additional restrictions against narcotics, and all alcoholic beverages are forbidden, including beer. The LDS Church interprets "hot drinks" to mean coffee and tea.

The only official interpretation of "hot drinks" (D&C 89:9) in the Word of Wisdom is the statement made by early Church leaders that the term "hot drinks" means tea and coffee. Members should not use any substance that contains illegal drugs. Nor should members use harmful or habit-forming substances except under the care of a competent physician.

What this means is that drinking hot peppermint tea is forbidden, despite containing zero caffeine, while drinking Jolt Cola or Bawls is okay because it is cold. If you think an adherent of those ridiculous rules is capable of forming an effective drug policy for people who live in the 21st Century, vote Romney, and hope he doesn't drag other horrible ideas from 1850 into your life.

That's right, the correct answer is Johnson. Honestly, it is baffling to me to grasp why Romney is actually still getting votes when Johnson is clearly the better conservative candidate.

Yeah, he supports a number of things that old-world conservatives don't support (ie gay marriage), but if you're still floating around this planet in this day and age and you are genuinely against gay marriage, you might as well give up.. you've lost this battle.

It's pretty clear to me that Romney doesn't stand a chance in hell at winning this. Johnson has so much greater appeal to more people (once they actually hear his platform), it seems to me the Republicans are intentionally throwing this election.

The only people I know personally who have mentioned their support of Romney are doing so simply because it is an anti-Obama vote. Not one of them can speak about the man and his graceful oration abilities, or his distinct knack for tact. I'm not hearing anyone say "I am voting for Romney because he's going to make my life better", all I hear is "Obama has put this country on the road to bankruptcy, we need to get rid of him".

D and R are so incredibly polarized these days that it makes it nigh impossible to have a civil discussion about politics. This is exactly how each party likes it. They love this polarization, because it help keep either of the two in power. So long as half of us can hate the other half in unison, we will continue to support the group who is "Anti-Those-Guys".

As long as the goal is to simply cause the other team to lose, we will not have any candidates prepared to lead us and make us winners. We will be mired in argument, insulting threats, silly cartoons, and obnoxious Fecebook pictures.

D and R are so incredibly polarized these days that it makes it nigh impossible to have a civil discussion about politics. This is exactly how each party likes it. They love this polarization, because it help keep either of the two in power. So long as half of us can hate the other half in unison, we will continue to support the group who is "Anti-Those-Guys".

As long as the goal is to simply cause the other team to lose, we will not have any candidates prepared to lead us and make us winners. We will be mired in argument, insulting threats, silly cartoons, and obnoxious Fecebook pictures.

Kinda makes American Democracy look like an Illuminati conspiracy, if you ask me.

>>Yes, the choice is clear in this election, but only because one of the candidates has portrayed himself as bat$#!7 crazy.

I agree 100%. I'm not sure how the hell he got voted into the office of the President in the first place.

Its funny, but everyone I have expressed this opinion to assumes I am talking about their favorite candidate and get huffy with me (except the Paul Ryan crowd who actually see it for what it is.) The really scary ones were the Santorum voters. Some of those bastards got downright violent...

In this election it really doesn't matter whomever that gets elected, both are looking at a task that is a big headache - the economy.

It matters a great deal, because the press ignores all but the most egregious errors of Democrats, while reporting on just about anything negative they can find with Republicans.

If you care at all about the government getting away with murder (sometimes literally) then it makes no sense to vote Democrat. ANY other candidate will probably be investigated and reported on way more thoroughly.

Deregulation is about the same as letting your dog out of their crate after you have been gone a few hours. They run all over the place like mad fools until they get tired out and settle down. Sometimes they get overexcited and smack into walls or furniture when they do it. Despite the potential for damage, I don't think anyone is arguing that it is better for the dog to live in there.

Same thing goes for an industry that was smacking up against regulations for 50 years. They've gotten so good at smacking up against the rules which artificially held them back that as soon as they are freed from it, they go ape shit.

There are two reasons deregulation has become a problem:

1) One side thinks that rapid, unplanned deregulation is the solution to all possible problems, when in fact, it is quite likely to cause short term disaster before things get better. And the faster the deregulation, the worse the disaster.

2) Our reaction to problems caused by deregulation is to reward them by bailing them out, and then return them to the cage. This will fail because eventually the regulations will be relaxed again and no one will have learned their lesson. In the meantime, efficiency suffers under the regulatory scheme.

Now, there needs to be some regulation to prevent fraud and predatory practices. However, there are entire divisions of people who are devoted to complying with regulations and interacting with an overgrown, self-perpetuating bureaucracy. That same bureaucracy has become large enough, and powerful enough on it's own that it is virtually the fourth branch of government, completely unelected and impossible to move even with concerted effort.

No it is like deciding whether your dog should live in a cage, your house, your property, or the neighborhood.. Sure a cage is bad. However few would argue that letting your dog crap in your neighbor's lawn is good for the community. Thus regulation is a matter of degree. You chose an analogy that highlights over regulation. My 'crapping on the neighbor' analogy highlights the danger of under regulation. Don't let tailored analogies restrict your thinking on the utility and limits of regulation.

Well, I was more expressing my opinion via an analogy than letting it form my thinking. I was more illustrating another situation where sudden bad behavior after deregulation does not imply constant misbehavior forever more.

Now, of course, you have a point about regulation and over-regulation, and the gradient of the change is probably more telling. If you go from a lot of regulation to a lot less, then you will have bigger outbursts. That doesn't mean that you can't find a way to live with the new situation, and you certainly have a happier dog.

Any regulation will have a confining effect, and if you have a growing dog, just like we want to have a growing economy, a nice fenced in yard that worked for your puppy isn't going to work for your dog. However, you do probably want your dog to eventually grow up, just like you want a growing economy.

If we could trust corporations to keep our rivers from catching fire, keep the economy from collapsing, sterilize their products from meningitis, collude and monopolize markets, then we wouldn't need regulations.

Unfortunately, many corporations put profits above everything else, so we need to confine them and reduce those profits to better our society and protect the members.

Why on earth do you think the banks were regulated in the first place? The 1933 Banking Act, aka Glass-Stegall, which separated retail banking and merchant banking, was introduced to stop the banks from runnig amok. What happened when that act was repealed? The banks ran amok again.

You know, you seem to be under the impression that recorded history began when you were born. The fact is it goes back considerably earlier. Where Regulation exists, it exists for a purpose, unrelated to your birth.

If Glass-Stegall was never passed, these banks would have dabbled in bad behavior when they were much SMALLER and less likely to tank the entire US economy. By 2007 they would have been far wiser than they were when the shit hit the fan.

The biggest problem is not the deregulated banks, but the bailouts that kept bad banks in business. There were plenty of banks that didn't need a bailout. Instead of thinning the herd, and allowing the bad banks to fail and declare bankruptcy, we bailed them out with taxpayer dollars, and set them up to fail again, because no one learned their damn lesson. We had a great opportunity to get rid of all the bad banks, and instead we saved them, so they can tank the economy in the future.

Then stupid shit like Dodd-Frank passes that has ALL sorts of riders on it bought by lobbyists. Read about the Durbin amendment. That piece of legislation was practically written by the credit card companies.

Glass Steagall didn't apply to AIG, Lehman Bros, Bear Steans, Countrywide, Fannie, or JP Mogan. None of those were commercial banks, thus Glass Steagall didn't apply.
I don't know anyone who thinks Glass Steagall was the sole reason for the financial crisis. However, the overturning of it was part and parcel of an ideology that was a major factor in the crash: The erroneous belief system that banks can self-regulate without eventually creating an overwhelming systemic risk. This belief was manifested in a variety of bad ideas, poor oversight, exemptions and worse legislation. Eliminating Glass Steagall was part of a trend that threw open the doors to "too big to fail" - Smith Barney plus Traveler's Insurance plus Citibank became Citigroup. Not just too big to fail, but too big to manage, too, by all accounts.

What a maroon. AIG, FNM and FRM, Countrywide are NOT banks and are outside of Glass-Steagall law. The problem was in banks like Citigroup (funny you've forgotten about it), BoA and JPM investing in risky instruments with the help of the companies listed above.

This is a completely illogical analogy. You can't compare the richest people in the world (who have the freedom to do much more than we could in 50 lifetimes because of it) with some dog that's been locked in a cage.

And you're basing your reasons on absolutely no scientific data, with the assumption that the downsides of deregulation are somehow only "temporary," with no explanation as to how it would only be temporary. And if that's the case, why has Monsanto gotten away with terrorizing smaller farmers for decades? Why do oil companies continue to cause natural disasters like the Gulf and Alaska spills (and those are just in the US) or Shell's constant leaks on the west coast of Africa?

And what makes you think efficiency "suffers" because of regulation? Regulation is one of the things that keeps monopolies from forming, and last I checked, monopolies aren't good in terms of efficiency. Regulation is also the reason banks can't charge you astronomically high interest rates on simple loans, and can instead only charge you outrageously high interest rates, which is also an improvement in terms of efficiency. Regulation also INDIRECTLY helps with efficiency by, say, not letting companies dump chemical byproducts close to water supplies and poisoning every other company's employees.

You misleading little prick. He suspended taxes so that the ships could unload gasoline before having to pay taxes. This is so the disaster caused shortage could be reduced, not because the economy works better without regulation. After all, NYC is one of the most highly regulated economies in the world and it is also one of the largest and most productive with its highly regulated metropolitan area producing 8.5% of the US GDP with only 7% of the population.

I predict the majority of commenters hate the two main parties, but the majority of responders to this poll will pick one of the two main parties.

It's a test of the mathematically depressing fact of how first-past-the-post voting always degenerates into two-party rule due to fear.

It has its disadvantages and advantages like every system:

Disadvantage: Two parties get to fight it out while other viewpoints and fringe ideas never really get brought up and dealt with. The winner, usually feeling they have a mandate because they beat out the only other choice takes actions far beyond what even the people who voted them into office want. Very bipolar partisan factionalism with little cause to form any sort of working together.

Advantages: The two main parties have to cater to the center mass of people rather than subscribe to fringe viewpoints as if they go too far, the otherside will always win. There is less factionalism, or at least less factions to deal with. Theoretically, the winner does so with a majority and therefore some sort of mandate which gains acceptance and provides for a more stable government.

Advantages: The two main parties have to cater to the center mass of people rather than subscribe to fringe viewpoints as if they go too far, the otherside will always win. There is less factionalism, or at least less factions to deal with. Theoretically, the winner does so with a majority and therefore some sort of mandate which gains acceptance and provides for a more stable government.

What you call an advantage is what I'd call the system's biggest disadvantage. The whole political spectrum is compressed down to a one-dimensional line and the only voters they fight for are the narrow section in the center, most "mainstream" democrats and republicans aren't relevant because they'll never switch sides and voting for anyone else or not voting only weakens "their" side. They can grumble and moan but you know in the end they'll tow the party line because it's better than the other guy winning. And there's no cooperation between the sides unless they're both looking to screw you.

In our system there's currently seven parties in parliament, two left, three center (left/right-leaning perhaps) and two right and for the most part they do find a majority after the election, like currently both left parties and one center party is in a coalition, it's not really more fancy than each senator wanting their pork. And it obviously matters if the voting distribution is 5% vs 30 % or 15% vs 20%, so each vote matters as you shift from "light red" to "dark red" even though it'll probably still be a red government and the same for blue. That means you have to work for all your voters, because otherwise they're fleeing in all directions.

The other big point is cooperation, with smaller parties you don't need to have the leftmost liberal Democrat working with the rightmost tea party Republican. Very often you can find a majority center-left, center-right or moderate left-moderate right, the US system is extremely adversarial. Anything one side comes up with, the other side must absolutely hate and totally try to sabotage in every way possible, even by cheap techniques like filibustering. And why not? They don't ever need to cooperate neither now nor later, no reason not to burn bridges. And if you ever get control over both the House and Senate, ram 'em good.

Take a look at this map [electionprojection.com]. If you live live in one of the solid colored states, the electoral votes for your state are already statistically guaranteed. Voting for the lesser of two evils in one of those states is like pissing into the ocean. It has absolutely no chance of having any effect in the outcome of the election, and at best it slightly adjusts the margins of victory sending a message. Vote for the candidate that sends the best message; the one that best reflects your political views.

In the off chance that the popular vote is extremely close, votes in a "locked" state can help prevent a favored candidate from winning the EC but not the popular vote, which would prevent them from having a "mandate" with its associated political clout. So it is not 100% wasted.

This electoral college system still doesn't make sense to me.It ignores a vast majority of the population, and gives way too much power to a few states.Seriously, the fact that Bush got elected with 500 000 votes less than Al Gore should be a major hint that the system is fucked up.

Well, the problem isn't with the Electoral College system, per se. It has a lot to do with the implementation. The whole point of having a proxy voting system is to try to quantize the popular vote and intermix it with the number of states so that the federal system isn't merely ruled by the most populace states. The rub is giving each state too much control over the quantizing process. The result is states have chosen to cast all their electoral votes in one fashion instead of splitting them upon the popular vote in each state. This has been done presumably because it results in a lot less moderate of results from each state--as in a system with "strong" (ie with a 15% edge) a state with 30 votes total would split with only a 5 vote difference instead of a solid 30 vote block one way or the other--which in turn pushes more consideration towards states with more electoral votes--be it more election focus to more general political considerations from the President.

So, while I could readily support a candidate who won the electoral vote while losing the popular vote by 500,000 votes, the system really needs to be split such that the above really means that more states (and mostly their populace) as a whole voted that way instead of it merely being a few "swing" states that are effectively able to upset the popular vote.

I'm voting R because *fingers crossed* Romney was blowing smoke throughout the primaries and will return to his roots: a pragmatic administer pursuing data-driven solutions. And take the party with him.

I live in Missouri, which despite being GOP-leaning now is still a bit swingy. Therefore I can't simply vote my conscience (I would rather vote for Jill Stein and possibly some other minor-party candidates) because in such a close state a vote for a non-Dem is effectively a vote for a Republican.

My county in particular is so Republican that several races were decided in the primary.

You're bound to fail. The reason government gets so big is they make promises and have to deal with problems that become much easier to deal with when they have their hands on all these nice powers we gave their predecessors.

You know, I knew Obama would be the same as Bush. Not because I believed Obama was just like Bush and lying to us, but instead because he was inexperienced at the Federal level and had no idea what the job he signed up for was going to be like. When you are faced with everything being an emergency, and those emergencies can determine the fates of nations and people, you don't start throwing away your options. You don't start releasing Gitmo prisoners when you actually realize that your prisoners aren't meek political prisoners. You don't stop drone strikes when your other option is an infeasible invasion of Pakistan with troops that you can't justify and you certainly can't risk losing. You can't end the wars immediately and withdraw the troops because the Shiites and Taliban will be in full power in six months if you just start unilaterally withdrawing.

Add to that the fact that as President, you hold the reins of the bureaucracy, but that same bureaucracy happens to be a team of stagecoach horses running wild towards a cliff. It outweighs you by a ton, has its own momentum and you can only sometimes get it to ignore its dumb, animal instincts when you pull really hard and get really lucky.

This is a job that gives people grey hair in less than four years. Your usual third party libertarian candidate will be hilariously under-qualified for the job and if they even try half the shit they promise, they will either fall off and be trampled or they will give in and act just like any other president from any other party just to keep above water.

The only real hope for a useful third party candidate is if you can force a current party, and its experienced politicians, to split and merge with the libertarians. Then you might get some of these policies and some real power. Look at the history of parties in the US, and you can see all of the major parties grew very organically from previous big parties, only fracturing on very big items. I just don't think the Republicans are there yet, they're too disciplined. The Democrats are more likely to split because they're a lot less disciplined.

"People in Texas and California may as well not vote".. for president/vice president. But I live in California and there's a hell of a lot more on the ballot this year than just the presidential race. Congressional and state races aside (also pretty wrapped up), there's also a lot of propositions with potentially profound effects, and in my electorate some bond measures which basically decide whether the local school system gets stabilized or eviscerated. Don't decide to vote or not vote just around whether your vote is worth jack in the presidential race - think about what else is on the ballot.

Just like you say, when I realized I didn't like either candidate, I first thought: Hey who do I dislike less? Then I first thought of the Simpsons. Go ahead, vote for a third candidate, you're just throwing your vote away.

Then I thought,"Congress is at an all time low of approval rating. If enough people "threw their vote away" on third party candidates, it would be a signal, that the both the candidates are disliked. Maybe if they have a low approval rating, they will just lame duck and not screw stuff up a bunch." I would want the public to have this notion too because it is a sure lot better than feeling dirty voting for someone you don't want in office only because they're someone who would be worse off.

Unfortunately, it isn't who you vote for, it is who do you vote against? I seriously feel that a lot of people aren't actually voting FOR a candidate because they like him or her. They vote for the candidate that has the best chance of beating the one they don't want to win.

The PBS Newshour for example has carefully ignored reporting the substance of the 3rd political party and 4th political party presidential campaign rhetoric.

The public loss is neither of the candidates of the big two parties has been forced to acknowledge the awful problems with America and global warming, private debt, public debt and foreign policy or foreign conflict. We are a nation with presidential candidates saying America is great while the ocean inundates New York City.

The rhetoric the big two candidates have adopted is "gladhanding" where you say nice things that Americans love hear said and carefully avoid saying anything that can be used by the other candidate to peel away any voting constituency.

The benefit of the third and fourth party candidates is they have been speaking truth to power. But the careful studied non-coverage of their rhetoric and the substance underlying it has prevented the national political dialogue from developing the depth and conviction to move ahead with changes, reform and humanity necessary to save the planet from a looming century of environmental change or degradation.

Unless power is restored in the next 24 hours I will miss voting for the first time due to Sandy and the need to evac to find not just electricity, but heat. Those left behind (or with generators) may be forced to cast provisional ballots anyways as the BOE doesn't appear to have any concept of what to do if the electricity is out.

spoken like a true american. the u.s. does not have as much influence on the rest of the world as you think. Certainly not europeans.
That's odd, considering most Americans don't concern themselves with the rest of the world and have to be reminded by the rest of the world (and particularly Europeans) that Americans need to stop influencing the rest of the world. Europeans especially do this a lot on slashdot.

spoken like a true american. the u.s. does not have as much influence on the rest of the world as you think. Certainly not europeans.

Others have already corrected you, but I just wanted to share one more tidbit...

Top story on the BBC right this second: "US rivals battle for swing states".
Above-the-scroll on Al Jazeera right this second: "US Elections 2012" and "Obama and Romney battle for key swing states"
Above-the-scroll on Spiegel right this second: "Obama und Romney gehen auf den Keks", whatever the hell that means.
Top story on Ha Aretz right this second: "Poll: Obama, Romney essentially tied in key swing states "

Yeah, the rest of the world barely even gives US internal politics a second thought.

I like to click on articles or polls that don't interest me, just so I can make a comment saying that this article or poll doesn't concern me, because I'm arrogant enough to believe that every article and poll on a website must be interesting to me personally, instead of simply clicking on content that is in fact interesting to me, because I believe that every link on every website that my glorious being decides to visit must be perfection and agree with my opinions in all possible ways.

Also, another missing option for:I like to feed the trolls.

Also:I like to read run-on sentences out loud, because it makes me sound out of breath.

Foreign policy: "Yay Israel! I want to use drones, but probably not go to war with Iran." all the way to "Yay Israel! I want to use drones, and probably go to war with Iran." Global gamut from Switzerland to Sudan to North Korea.

Deficits: "Reduce the deficit from 1.4 trillion to 1.2 trillion, repeal Bush tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans." all the way to "Reduce the deficit from 1.4 trillion to 1.1 trillion, cut taxes even further." Global gamut from Greece to Saudi Arabia to China

Religion: "I believe in an invisible man who sent his son to Israel." vs. "I believe in an invisible man who sent his son to America." Global gamut runs from "ha ha, those idiots believe in an invisible man" to "there's a whole bunch of invisible people."

Health care: "Make everybody buy insurance, and keep insurance companies from being dicks. Don't worry I won't cut medicare. Honest!" vs "I don't think insurance companies should be dicks, but it should be up to the states to decide. Don't worry I won't cut medicare. Honest!" compare to "you can't get healthcare unless you know a guy" or "sure, you can get a free boob job!"

Exactly this. Canada has -- or had, back when I was living there -- something called a 'declined vote'. You showed up at the polling place, then formally declined to vote. They had to record that, it was roughly like voting for 'none of the above'; if enough people did it, they'd have to hold that particular election over again. (Not that that ever happened in real life, alas.)

Here, third parties have little enough chance to win or even seriously tilt the election (except when there's a major random 3rd party candidate for president). If you'd really rather vote 'none of the above', pick some 3rd party and vote for them. It sends more of a message than just not showing up.

You may have a right to complain if you're too apathetic to show up to vote -- but I have a right to ignore you.